This is a platform to comment on local, state and national politics and political news. A special area of interest is the role of corporate media in politics as we move closer and closer to one huge corporation owning all of the media outlets in the country and stifling all independent and critical voices. It will also focus on the absurd 30-plus year Nixonesque political strategy of the “liberal media” lie.
This blog is on temporary hiatus because of my job and thin-skinned Republicans.

Jul 7, 2009

Smokefree restaurants are thriving

LANSING -- With the Senate back next week from its two week summer break, it’s hoped they will take up the workplace smoking ban that has overwhelming support of Michigan residents.

Only one owner, according to the LSJ, said that he was seeing a reduction in his business, and he had only tried it a month. He felt that the economy was a factor in that result. He said he did it for his employees and was sticking with his decision.

The most important aspect of the workplace smoking ban is to protect the health of workers, who have a 50 percent higher rate of cancer than non-hospitality workers. This is a public health issue, but opponents are throwing every argument they can think of to try and defeat it.

The owner of DeLuca's in Lansing said she felt it was "wonderful" for business, and there are more people coming in since December.

17 comments:

After a year and a half of experience here in Chicago, now that the fanfare has worn off and the lobbyists have moved on to other states, it's clearly obvious that trying to ban smoking in small neighborhood "shot and beer" bars is pretty useless. Many small bars in my area ignore the ban to keep their customers, neighbors, and local police (many are patrons when off duty) satisfied. In areas where real crime is an issue, the problem of panhandlers, drug dealers, hookers, and other undesirables being attracted by groups of people outside the bars and causing disturbances on the PUBLIC street, property that the owner has no control over, outweighs the issue of people peacefully smoking inside a bar, bothering absolutly no one, Chicago did not repeal the ordinance that prohibits people from congregating outside the bars. All of the complaints are from neighbors of bars that comply. It's fading into history in many small neighborhood bars. The only places it becomes an issue seems to be in rural areas where local police have little to do except visit local bars and monitor their parking lots, the larger "company" bars downtown, and those in "trendy" areas with a high turnover of patrons.

If the marketplace is successfully showing that smokefree places are doing good, then why is an oppressive ban even required? It seems like just a lot of busybodies wasting their time. The fact that after over a year and a half, no one is complaining about the small neighborhood bars ignoring the ban indicates that these busybodies never patronize the places they seem to need to control.

Are you doubting that smokefree places are doing good? Do you have any thing that says they are not? The fact that people are pushing the false premise that a workplace smoking ban will hurt business is the reason we need a workplace smoking ban. People are buying into that lie, yet the data from 37 other states says otherwise.

First, I don’t see what’s “oppressive” about a workplace smoking ban. Second, it’s needed because secondhand smoke is deadly and causes numerous diseases and ailments. This is a public health issue.

Even if your claim about these alleged neighborhood bars is true, lawlessness is no reason not to protect employees and patrons.

"The fact that people are pushing the false premise that a workplace smoking ban will hurt business is the reason we need a workplace smoking ban."

So now you say that it's not second hand smoke that causes the problem for others and the need for the ban, but now you said it's because people are pushing that a ban will hurt business is the reason that a ban is needed.

Very good. You've finally admitted that the real issue here is that you're looking to control others and not out of a health concern.

You really should spend your time finding a job to fill up your days so that you can insure your wife. Leaving her uninsured is inexcusable.

No, what I am saying is that the harmful effects of secondhand smoke are undisputed. That means the only argument people have against the smoking ban is it harmful to business. That is simply not true. Bob said if places that are voluntary going smokefree are doing so well, then why do we need a mandatory ban? The answer is there are people who have the false belief that it will hurt business. Meaning they will not voluntary go smokefree. That’s why the mandatory ban is needed.

Yep. I know that's what you mean. When the people won't do what the government wants, the government forces the people to go against their will. In other words, you believe that government knows better how to run people's lives than the people do. In your case, that is probably true, since you refuse to do what's necessary to get health coverage for your wife. But most people aren't like you. Only the freeloaders do as you do.

If the bans are about health issues, sign makers should be required to put the Chantix and Zyban warning on all of the “No smoking” signs to prevent suicides and lawsuits by forcefully coercing people into using a dangerous product.

Petosky, MI is far ahead of everyone. They've been there, done that. Now it's time to get back to sanity by repealing the ban, which they did. All the problems it created are gone, except for the ranting and raving of the ban lobbyists.

I agree with former Charlevoix County Commissioner Connie Saltonstall when she says “Secondhand smoke is proven to be a medical health hazard, and for these commissioners to think that it’s more important to give people the right to smoke than to protect the health of the citizens of Charlevoix County.”

Plus, the law didn’t even affect bars and restaurants. To show you how stupid the chairman of board is we have this quote, “We cannot stop people from having their own little vices.” No one is trying to stop them from their “own little vices” even if it kills millions. We are trying to stop them from infringing on the majority’s right to breathe clean, healthy air.

If smoking bans are good for business, then don't you think more and more restaurants and bars would voluntarily go that route? In fact, many have and I applaud them for it.

What is amazing to me is how you save your venom for Republicans. Yet there are a bunch of House Democrats who, according to you, would trade lives for jobs. Hospitality workers, according to you, have a much higher cancer rate, which you are attributing to secondhand smoke. Yet House Democrats want to exempt casinos from the ban, which means...according to you...that they are fine with killing those hospitality workers.

You (purposesly, I would guess) try to blur the issues by saying these House Democrats mistakenly feel a ban would hurt business. But that's distorting the point. If you are right about second hand smoking, then it doesn't matter if it hurts business or not. In your own argument, House Democrats are willing to kill to protect jobs...it makes it even worse if the jobs aren't really at risk.

I'm a nonsmoker. I would be happy if I never walked into restaurant or bar again where smoking was allowed. I make the free decision all the time if I will patronize restaurants where smoking is allowed. Such freedom is a foreign concept to you.

The ONLY justification for government intervention is to protect the health of the workers. But House Democrats show that's not something they really believe in.

I know this is just game playing because you know the answer. In fact, I have answered it repeatedly, brett. Once again, the answer to “If smoking bans are good for business, then don't you think more and more restaurants and bars would voluntarily go that route” is because there are people who believe a smoking ban will hurt business. There is not a single bit of evidence that supports that false claim, but when the trade associations you pay dues to that are supposed to be looking out for your interests push that lie, it’s not surprising a few would believe that lie.

I don’t have to “save my venom for Republicans” because there is plenty to go around. Like I said, Detroit Democrats are under the same mistaken belief that it will hurt jobs. They are mistaken, and I have explained that to you about 30 times. Detroit has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state, and they are taking the short view that starvation will hit sooner that cancer, stroke, heart attack and other disease caused by secondhand smoke.

This is not a partisan issue. You know what, brett, I’m not “right about second hand smoking,” but the U.S. Surgeon General and the EPA are. The harmful effects of secondhand smoke are undisputed.

I don’t see how you can define freedom as allowing a small minority to harm the health of the majority. Congress has an obligation to protect the public health.

“But House Democrats show that's not something they really believe in?” You’re joking, right? It was the Senate Democrats that voted to leave $140 million in federal funds on the table that would go directly to unemployed workers.

Like I said, this is not a partisan issue unless you look at the one person holding up the majority. That would be Mike Bishop. All he has to do is allow a vote like Andy Dillon and the House Democrats did, and once it passes - and it will - assign members to the conference committee who will actually negotiate in good faith.

The Michigan Legislature has an obligation under the Michigan Constitution to protect the public health, and that is what the smoking ban does.

Don''t think that just passing a ban will get rid of those arrogant lobbyists. Once they find gullible lawmakers, they'll be back for the patios later, AFTER business owners spend thousands of dollars to build them for their smoking patrons.. This is a quote from page seven of the ban lobbyists instruction book.

"Tobacco control advocates should work 'from the inside out.' Prior to addressingoutdoor restrictions, communities should first have effective smokefree laws for indoor environments. Because people are exposed to higher levels of secondhand smoke inindoor settings than in outdoor ones, it makes sense from a public health perspective toprotect nonsmokers indoors before seeking outdoor air laws.There is emerging science on the health hazards of outdoor exposure to secondhand smoke," Here's the whole instruction book.

What “arrogant lobbyists” are you talking about? The tobacco industry? They can’t be the cash rich tobacco industry because you would never get access to their “instruction book.”

Oh, you mean the arrogant American Caner Society, The American Heart Association, The American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association. Get real.

It makes sense to me. “Because people are exposed to higher levels of secondhand smoke in indoor settings than in outdoor ones, it makes sense from a public health perspective toprotect nonsmokers indoors before seeking outdoor air laws.” I have not heard of a single instance of anyone proposing an outdoor smoking ban.